The Queen's Speech at the state opening of parliament (source UK Parliament)

It is common for a democratic parliamentary system to have a bicameral legislature, with a directly elected lower chamber and a second, revising chamber. The United Kingdom is unusual in that its second chamber is largely nominated rather than elected, and those that are not nominated are drawn from the hereditary aristocracy.

There has been much debate in the past 13 years about how the House of Lords should be reformed – with the expulsion of most of the hereditaries a notable change – but the British system is still archaic compared with most other countries.

You can find the archive of Federal Union articles on reform of the House of Lords here.

6 Comments

I think that, if hereditary peers are removed, then the House of Lords can become quite useful if it remains nominated. That is, political veterans, and experienced independents in lots of other sectors would have an input. Leaving the party politics of the lower chamber. Just a thought

The Hereditaries were removed unlawfully. Each Hereditary was a peer by dint of holding a Letter Patent – an Act of Parliament in itself. It is unlawful to repeal multiple Acts with a single Act.

The so-called “nominated” peers are whipped, just like the MPs. Even the so-called independents, who have bought/donated their way into their peerage, are beholden. So there is no independence there whatsoever, and party politics is well and truly established in the upper house.

The Hereditaries were propagandised against as being doddering old fools. In reality, they were an inconvenience to successive governments because they couldn’t be whipped.

I think there is a great deal of envy involved looking at the House of Lords with all their finery. Many see it just a house of privelage lording over the plebian masses, but this could not be further than the truth. Some are from honorable houses who have earned respect or inherited a responsibility to maintain trust, and would have a lot to lose if that were lost. Many in there are there from merit and most of them are not paid a wage, and of independent means, meaning they are less likely to be bribed. They get an attendance allowance, and some expenses which they could earn much more outside. It does not have the power to create laws, that is the privelage of the Commons, (or is Brussels these days). The Lords has the power to amend, refuse or pass proposed new laws to the Queen for approval only. If this this house was elected, many think it will have democratic legitimacy to start creating laws itselves, and maybe even more power than the Commons, thus upsetting the balance of power in Parliament. If used properly it works well as a safety valve to bad laws, but most of our laws now originate from Brussels, these days, there’s not much for them to do in both Houses, except wave the hypothetical rubber stamp.

The UK Lords may not be elected, but they do not create or suggest new Laws. They merely scrutinise, amend and pass onto the Queen to Approve Laws that originated from an elected chamber called the Commons, from ordinary people. Therefore people are represented in this way, that it effects their lives. Bad laws can be repealed, but not bad EU Laws
The EU Commission is unelected, but worse than that, they make up the laws that cover the whole European Union. It is a top down Undemocratic bureaucracy, where in theory the European parliament passes laws down and then voted on in the European parliament, then passed onto national parliaments to be rubber stamped. It’s like the Soviet Politburo in the old USSR. Laws that are created here cannot be refused, changed or returned, but simply complied with.

I think House of Lords should be abolished, and replaced with a Senate, just like what they have in Belgium. Belgium, which is also a kingdom, does not have aristocrats sitting in any chamber of parliament. The only aristocrats are the Royal Family.

Senate thus becomes an elected body as the upper chamber of UK federal parliament. House of Commons can be renamed into House of Representatives, the lower chamber of federal parliament.

Furthermore, the regional parliaments in NI, Wales and Scotland will have several English counterparts, namely North of England, the Midlands, Greater London, and South of England regional parliaments and executive branches.

What we see in Belgium can be implemented in the UK. Flanders and Wallonia with each having a regional executive and assembly; and a Prime Minister heading a federal government who answers to the Federal Parliament

Turn the HoL into the elected federal chamber, derived from which would be the UK government with reserved areas including defence, foreign policy, constitutional affairs, monetary policy and other traditionally federal matters. Legislation from each national parliament could still go there for revising and validating against a new written constitution.